November 20, 2017

Finding God in the Waves: How I Lost My Faith and Found It Again Through Science.  A review of the book by Mike “Science Mike” McHargue.  Part 1.

Finding God in the Waves: How I Lost My Faith and Found It Again Through Science — A review of the book by Mike “Science Mike” McHargue.  Part 1.

• • •

Back on April 17 of this year, Pete Enns hosted Mike McHargue on his podcast: B4NP Podcast Episode 5: “That Topic that Isn’t Going Anywhere Anytime Soon: Science and the Bible,” with Mike McHargue .  I was utterly intrigued by the podcast and ordered Mike’s book immediately and read it.  Here is how Amazon and the book’s jacket describe the author:

Mike McHargue, also known as “Science Mike,” is a Christian turned atheist turned follower of Jesus who uses his story to help people know God in an age of science. Mike is the host and co-host of two podcasts–Ask Science Mike and The Liturgists Podcast –that have attracted a curious following among Christians, the spiritually interested, and the religiously unaffiliated. He is an in-demand speaker at conferences and churches around the country, and he writes for the Storyline Blog, Sojourners, and Relevant magazine.

This is not the book you might think it is.  Yes, it is the story of how a fundamentalist evangelical lost his faith in God, became an atheist, and then found his way back to God.  But the story doesn’t fit the evangelical “I-once-was-lost-but-now-I’m-found” typical script.  In fact it doesn’t fit any script I’ve ever heard before.  For example, Mike was helped on his journey back to the Lord through the ministry of Rob Bell.  Yeah—that Rob Bell.  Bell writes the forward for Mike’s book and here is part of that forward in the inimitable Bell style:

I’ve known Mike for four years now and I’ve been struck on a number of occasions by how engaged and involved and tuned in and

fully alive

he is to people and experiences around him.

Yes, Mike is a smart dude, but it isn’t just his brain,

it’s his heart

And it isn’t just his heart, it’s his refusal to let his life pass him

by with without giving it everything he’s got.

Whatever he does, he throws himself into it.

All of himself.

That’s the thing about being fully alive—you feel everything so

much more—

the pain and

loss and

doubt and

anger and

bewilderment and

confusion and the

joy and

love and

euphoria and

everything in between.

I point this out about Mike because I know some people

will read this book and think that it’s about

science or

faith or

doubt or

belief or

atheism or

Jesus or

God or

prayer or

church or

marriage or

friends.

And they’ll be right. Kind of.

But that’s just scratching the surface.

At its heart, this is a book about being fully alive.

And to be fully alive, you have to be honest.

About everything.

On his blog page Mike has some brief trailers about why he wrote the book and what it is about.  Although “brutally honest” has become a cliché, in Mike’s case the cliché fits.  Mike did not lose or drop his skepticism as he found God again.  In fact he subjects his religious experiences to a ruthless dialectic that some Christians find disturbing. For example, look at this review of his book on Amazon:

A few good thoughts here and there. But most of it is gobbledygook. Author overthinks things. Would have more peace if he took God at His Word rather than trying to filter it through a brain impacted by the fall. This side of eternity, there is just gonna be a lot that requires faith. Paradoxes or things that seem to be in opposition here are part of the mystery and beauty of living by faith . . . and knowing that answers will come later. No need to throw out the baby (the Word) with the bathwater (the parts of the Word and science) that are not understood or seem to be in contrast when our imperfect brains try to reconcile it all. We are told to live “faith to faith” . . . but this book grates against the peacefulness that can be found in journey and tries to boil it down to explanations (which fall short due to the nature of the walk of faith). At first I thought it might be a good tool to share with those questioning the Christian faith, but this book would totally confuse them or, worse, confirm cultural stereotypes from one man’s experience. Glad for the acknowledgement of a relationship with Jesus. Not glad for the dismissal of the inerrancy of Scripture. Our brains lead us well if we are guided by the Truth in Scripture, but they fail us when we try to make an infinite and ineffable God fit our finite understanding (while we live with fallen minds and bodies).

So if you were expecting your stereotypical evangelical “testimony” from this book, you will be disappointed.  But having deconstructed his faith, Mike is in the process of reconstructing what it means to be a believer, even a worshipper, in the 21st century, without sticking his head in the sand about what science and scholarship are revealing.

The fact that Mike has achieved a following from many millennials of the “none” or “done” persuasion is significant.  They are not going to be persuaded by “doubling down” on the usual evangelical apologetics.  If we who are trying to follow Jesus can’t find a way to speak to them where they are at, in a way that promotes dialogue, rather than speaking down to them, then we are going to lose them permanently.  They want an honest discussion of the problems they see with Christianity and the Bible, not a bunch of doublespeak and hand waving.

Look at the way Rob Bell was treated when he raised the issue of eternal conscious torment (ECT) in hell.  Yet many of these “nones” and “dones” have the same questions as Bell was raising.  Questions that, by the way, had a long history in the church of being raised.  Questions that deserve a discussion not a circle-the-wagons and fire on the dissenter’s type of attitude.

Look at the way Bruce Waltke and Pete Enns were forced to resign from their seminaries for discussing evolution.  Consider Waltke’s quote from the Biologos interview he gave:

“…if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”

Is Waltke showing the way forward, or the Ken Ham and AIG Creation Museum and Ark Encounter the way forward?  As Pete Enns said in a recent post :

Sometimes thinking clearly and deeply changes what you believe, and that does not make baby Jesus cry. Neither does it cue the seventh trumpet of judgment or kick over the seventh bowl of God’s wrath in the Book of Revelation.

Some of us are just made that way. And God can handle it…

Maybe changing our minds on some things—even on points where our “authentic commitment undergoes change”—is part of what it means to be a thinking Christian.

And maybe it would help a lot if our churches understood that and supported those of us who are wired this way as a needed presence in the church.

Maybe there’s more to this Christianity business than making sure we don’t wander off of the beach blanket.

So, a perfect book for us to contemplate and discuss here at Internet Monk, as we work our way through the post-evangelical wilderness.

Comments

  1. Robert F says:

    Not everybody is as intelligent as “Science Mike” or Peter Enns, or possesses their intellectual rigor and confidence in their own ability to deconstruct and reconstruct Christian faith. I’ve been struggling through deconstruction and reconstruction for decades now, but can’t say that I’m confident in the various reconstructions I’ve come up with, which are never sturdy or built to stand against the strong winds of suffering, or of further questions from myself and others. The result is that I’m in a perpetual state of patchwork reconstruction, and uncertainty; a lot of the time, no, all of the time, I’m can’t see how that state amounts to anything like confident faith. Some of the questions I ask myself: Is Christianity not a faith for dummies, or only for those intelligent enough to constantly subject it to the acid of criticism, perpetually reconstructing what comes through the bath, forever uncertain of the end result and the exact contents of faith? Did Jesus come to announce Good News to the dummies, or only the intelligent and intellectually astute? And if he didn’t come with Good News for the dummies, isn’t this a major obstacle to believing that what he brought was really Good News?

    • “Some of the questions I ask myself: Is Christianity not a faith for dummies, or only for those intelligent enough to constantly subject it to the acid of criticism, perpetually reconstructing what comes through the bath, forever uncertain of the end result and the exact contents of faith?”

      Paul answered this question in 1 Corinthians,

      “21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

      “Did Jesus come to announce Good News to the dummies, or only the intelligent and intellectually astute?” Again, Paul’s answer,

      “26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.”

      Now, of course, Paul is engaging in a bit of rhetoric here. He himself was an educated man and certainly engaged both the Jews and Greeks in disputations. I don’t think what he is saying here is that God puts a premium on your ignorance. I think what he is saying is that Jesus-shaped spirituality is cross-shaped. The way up is down; the first shall be last and the last first; the lords of the Gentiles lord it over their own but it shall not be so among you; he that would be greatest shall be servant of all. The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve. God defeated death by coming and dying. Robert, look to our own Chaplain Mike as the example to follow. He certainly is not afraid to engage the acid criticisms of the world and he is certainly no intellectual light-weight. But he doesn’t need to have answers to all the questions. And he spends his days in humble servitude to his fellow humans of whatever religious persuasion. Follow him as he follows Christ.

      • Adam Tauno Williams says:

        > But he doesn’t need to have answers to all the questions.

        Questions I ask myself about my questions: What would it matter if I had the answer? Do I actually need an answer? Is there any imperative reason what-so-ever I am asking this Question? If I discovered an answer would anyone near me benefit from it?

        Respectfully, many of the questions people use to torture themselves are apropos of nothing. They bear down on the substantive question of “what choices will I make today?” through only the most stretched and teetering of intellectual scaffolding. [and how often are they a justification for delaying making an obvious answer to that question? guilty-me-much]

        > And he spends his days

        The most important point of all: we are all spending our days!

        • +1

        • Christiane says:

          well, ‘science’ and ‘faith’ are somehow seen as in opposition among Christian fundamentalists, but in my Church we don’t see a conflict at all

          as far as ‘science’, a large part of it begins with ‘observation’ of the natural world, and this is not something alien to faith when sacred Scripture itself advises us this:
          “”But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you; And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you. 8″Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you; And let the fish of the sea declare to you. 9″Who among all these does not know That the hand of the LORD has done this” (Job 12)

          And so we are invited into the natural world to be taught by it …….. to ask of it what it knows …….. and to expect that if we listen, the natural world will reveal it’s mysteries to us ……. this doesn’t sound like a ‘conflict’ between ‘faith’ and ‘science’ to me

          it sounds like an invitation to come out into nature and ‘listen’ ……. ‘in silence, the Word’ 🙂

    • Robert, I fully understand your dilemma, as it is mine as well (having spent 3 decades in fundamentalist churches, with the baggage, scars, and resentment to show for it). The nature of this ‘thing’ involves uncertainty, as does everything else in life, if we are honest. As Pete Enns says, the opposite of faith is not doubt; the opposite of faith is certainty. Certainty is the hallmark of fundamentalism, which is why it is a house-of-cards kind of faith. We clearly see that when Christian youth take their first class in college (no matter what the subject!). Ken Ham’s ark fiasco isn’t going to change that. True faith is lived on the slippery slope, not in the bunker of ‘certainty’ with the door bolted and locked. So having it all figured out, whether that ‘certainty’ comes from burying one’s head in the sand and screaming ‘inerrancy’ or from the intellectual side where we have all the ‘issues’ reconciled to our satisfaction, is probably not possible, and wouldn’t be ‘faith’ if it was.

      But I think your question, did Jesus come to bring good news to the dummies or only the intellectually astute, points to the basic problem with fundamentalism (and the amazon review is a perfect example of that), and also a problem for the intellectual approach. The answer (at least for me) is that Jesus did NOT come to bring ‘good news’ to the dummies OR the intellectually astute but for ANCIENT PEOPLE. The basic problem is that Paul or the other authors didn’t live in our ‘world’ or write to people in our ‘world’, and even Jesus didn’t come to our ‘world’. This all happened (however it happened) in the ancient world and they weren’t concerned with issues of science and history as we are, they had very different social structures, economic systems, political systems, different ideas about justice and ethics, and a different way of understanding knowledge itself. That’s why it is simply impossible to pick up the Bible and ‘get it’ – we may think we do (as many fundamentalists believe – the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it) but without understanding that ancient world (or AT LEAST understanding that it was written to and for people in the ancient world) we will get it wrong more than right. The challenge for us is to try to understand their world, and what Jesus said (and what the ‘Jesus event’) meant to them in their world and then try to figure out how to ‘translate’ that to ours (and what their ‘world’ looked like is even a moving target – it seems a new book comes out every other week that claims to rewrite it all). And of course, we all run the risk of imposing our own values and ideas into that process. Basically, it ain’t easy trying to understand (and live) an ancient faith in a modern world. No easy answers here. Sorry. But as Pete says (often) the Bible itself is full of that kind of struggle, and it seems to be called ‘faith’.

      • Adam Tauno Williams says:

        > that Jesus did NOT come to bring ‘good news’

        He came to proclaim the Kingdom of God. The notion of “good news” bugs me; it subtly categorizes Christianity as Information – and back we go to Intellectualism – emphasizing orthodoxy over orthopraxy. There is no incarnation in “news”; it is a terrible metaphor.

        > they weren’t concerned with issues of science and history

        I wonder how concerned many are “with issues of science and history” vs. how often those “concerns” are a rather thin proxy for Identity. Are we|us|them|they genuinely concerned with the age of the Earth [as a lazy example] or concerned about the validation|recognition|dismissal|mockery of a declaration that delineates we|us|them|they. That can be hard to unpack; but “what are we truly talking about?” is an important question.

        > it ain’t easy trying to understand (and live) an ancient
        > faith in a modern world

        Perhaps one of the ways to increase in Understanding it is to Live it; refusing the notion we can do it the other way around.

        > No easy answers here

        Agree.

        • Dana Ames says:

          Adam,

          “good news” in the ancient world in the time of Christ was all about who was reigning. For Jesus’ listeners, evanggelion was the announcement about who the next emperor was. It was, technically, information – but the people then did not look at information the way we do. Evaggelion wasn’t some bit of factual data they could analyze and either accept or reject; it had a direct impact on their lives, very much translatable into some kind of -praxy. (“Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?”)

          >those “concerns” are a rather thin proxy for Identity.

          Yes, I think so.

          Dana

          • Adam Tauno Williams says:

            > but the people then did not look at information the way we do

            Agree! And in recognition of that change we moderns should be more astute concerning our metaphors / poetic speech; no reason to keep terms or metaphors merely because people are accustomed to or attached to them. It is isn’t meaning what we mean to say – let it go! There is a lot of Church Speak I feel this applies to; “good news” being one of them.

      • Dana Ames says:

        Greg,

        yes, well said.

        It was when I came to have some sort of understanding of the fact of the ancient nature of Christianity that the ground started to move under me – it was somewhat disconcerting, but also somewhat exciting, because a lot opened up for me. I trusted that God would show me where to look so that I could find some stability – not certainty – and a theology that could meet my questions without the hand waving. And so he did.

        Dana

  2. Robert F says:

    At its heart, this is a book about being fully alive.

    And to be fully alive, you have to be honest.

    About everything.

    That’s a tall order. Who has the temerity to claim that they are honest about everything? Who can even be sure what honesty is at all times and in all situations, if they are being honest with themselves? Could humanity survive if even a small percentage of it subjected the rest to such honesty? Beware of all stridently “honest” men and women.

    • Mike the Geologist says:

      Remember, Robert, this is Bell paying a compliment to his friend with a bit of rhetoric. I think you’ll see as we go along that Mike has honest humility. I’ve read the book and listended to some podcasts, he doesn’t come across as arrogant to me.

    • Adam Tauno Williams says:

      > That’s a tall order.

      It is someone speaking in the Aspirational Voice [about a friend], not in the Precise Voice.

      I understand your angst. I am a Precise Listener, it is my default mode. I constantly am hearing things and doing a cognitive double take – “What do you mean rents CAN NOT continue to increase at this rate? Of course they can – see this math here?… Oh, wait, you are using Aspirational-Moral Voice, sorry for interrupting, I am listening appropriately now, please proceed”. This probably has something to do with why I was drawn into Evangelicalism in the first place; lots of Precise Voice in the-big-E [albeit untethered from reality – which makes for an ugly business]. This is something I have to police about myself.

      • Reminds me of the Puritan preacher who bragged about God being a Precise god…

    • Dana Ames says:

      Robert,

      have you ever read any of Dostoyevski? I read “Brothers Karamazov” last winter. Your concerns sound like what was throbbing behind nearly every page of that book.

      Dana

      • Mike the Geologist says:

        Ooh..Ooh… Robert, I know what your new avatar is going to be 🙂

      • Robert F says:

        Dana, Yes, I’ve read all of Dostoevsky’s novels, in English translation of course. “TBK” has been a favorite novel of mine since my early twenties. I revisit it frequently.

    • Klasie Kraalogies says:

      Spoken like a true skeptic. I agree with you.

  3. Ronald Avra says:

    I subscribed to the ‘Bible for Normal People’ podcast when it originated and shortly thereafter added ‘The Liturgists’ and ‘Science Mike’ podcasts. I don’t consider them to be ‘safe’ listening, but that is precisely why they are needed; to disrupt the echo chambers that have been constructed in the many ghettos of Christianity. I don’t expect Mike McHargue to ever become a person who is easy to define or accommodate, and genuine faith may produce such people occasionally. I understand that in order to participate in a faith community, one must make reasonable attempts to acknowledge and accept the idiosyncrasies of other members. When you sign up, you begin the endless task of bearing with oddities of yourself and others. At some point, only God knows when, this will become the fullness of the body of Christ.

  4. Rick Ro. says:

    Good stuff. I love what I read of Science Mike’s testimony here. I’ll have to check out the book.

    –> “If we who are trying to follow Jesus can’t find a way to speak to them where they are at, in a way that promotes dialogue, rather than speaking down to them, then we are going to lose them permanently. They want an honest discussion of the problems they see with Christianity and the Bible, not a bunch of doublespeak and hand waving.”

    Indeed.I think we Christians tend to put the cart before the horse, making sure we have our standard Christian answers for each and every question. When was the last time someone here had a conversation with someone about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit or the Bible, and came away believing something differently than their going in position? (I could ask the same of politics.)

    I studied Mark 9:14-29 with some guys last night, the incident where the father of a possessed boy brings his son to the disciples to be healed, only they can’t do it. When Jesus comes upon their failure and asks what’s happening, the “I believe; help me with my unbelief” line is eventually uttered. We talked about how the father must have felt over the years, trying to get help for his son, but not finding any with the religious folks at the time. Then he hears about this Jesus fellow, but when he arrives to have his son healed Jesus isn’t there (he’s coming back from the Transfiguration). Instead, he gets the B-Team (the nine remaining disciples) and is met the same result: no healing for his son.

    At that moment, before Jesus arrives on the scene, I imagine the father is at the depth of despair. “Here I thought at last I would have healing for my beloved, that Jesus and his disciples have the power to cast out the demon in my son, but no. They’re no different than the Pharisees.”

    I think might be the reason for the man’s sudden unbelief. “I had faith that You could do it, Jesus, but it appears I was wrong. Your men are no different than all the others that I’ve gone to in the past.”

    And Jesus says, “Okay. I’ll show you that with faith all things are possible.”

    So break-break to today…How many “nones” and “dones” are in that category because all they’ve seen from us Christians is “no results”? All they ever see is “B-Team” effort and “B-Team” results.

    If we want to reach the nones and dones, we need a lot of prayer and we need a lot of Jesus, and we better shed all that other crap that we tend to THINK works, but has no effect, no results.

    • SottoVoce says:

      “How many “nones” and “dones” are in that category because all they’ve seen from us Christians is “no results”?”

      Ooh, ooh, me! I am! But you knew that already. 🙂

      • Mike the Geologist says:

        Always appreciate your pushback, SV. I am particularly interested in your and Klasie’s take on Mike’s story as it progresses.

    • Adam Tauno Williams says:

      > When was the last time someone here had a conversation with someone about God, …
      > and came away believing something differently than their going in position?

      ~3 months (?)

      > I could ask the same of politics.

      Every week! 🙂

      The world is so maddeningly complicated, and old [*1], one is [or should be] left in a state of constant motion; hopefully slowly circling the drain towards something like the truth. One can be unsettled – or one can enjoy the ride.

      If you are enjoying the ride – people will be much more interested in talking to you.

      [*1] Just the political/cultural history of *ONE* city, understood with enough granularity to be actually informative, will fill an entire shelf at the library. And people glibly speak of nations….

      • Rick Ro. says:

        I’ve actually changed opinions on several things over the past 5-10 years, some in the spiritual realm, some in the political arena. One of my most recent A-ha/epiphany changes of opinion was regarding removal of the Confederate statues in New Orleans. Having grown up there, and pretty certain that statue removal would have no long-lasting impact on the deep-seated racial issues going on there, I was of the opinion that removing the statues was stupid and an over-reaction. However, after reading Mayor Landrieu’s speech regarding the Confederate monument removal, I was exposed to several angles of thought which I hadn’t previously considered and went from “It’s stupid and unnecessary” to “It’s probably a good idea.”

        Spiritually, in the past 10 years I’ve gone from a “Must confess Jesus is Lord to be saved” to leaning a bit toward universalism.

        I’m sure I’ll be struck by further epiphanies in the future, too. I try to keep an open mind to things I don’t agree with.

    • Adam Tauno Williams says:

      > all they’ve seen from us Christians is “no results”?

      It is even worse – they see nothing – what they often HEAR is that No-Results-Are-Even-Possible.

      So many, especially big-E, Christians are nobody anyone would ever invite to a party. 🙁

      The number of times I’ve heard: “Yeah, Jesus said the poor with always be with us.” + Shrug.
      Woo Hoo! Thanks for that Wisdom bomb, but I think I’ll skip hanging out.

      Makes me cringe. One can often see it coming – you see it in their eyes … and then .. BOOM there is: if you just loved Jesus more you would know enough not to even care.

      • The good old “Take Just The Precise Words You Want And Totally Ignore The Wider Context” ploy. “Works” every time.

  5. Stephen says:

    The most interesting developments in Christian thinking

    are the responses to modernity

    by many thoughtful Christians.

    I suspect the future

    lies in liturgy

    and community

    and ethics

    and not in clinging

    to doctrines

    that most simply can no longer believe.

    But one thing I do know

    without a shred of doubt

    is that

    I absolutely detest

    the Rob Bell sentence fragment/paragraph “style”!!!!

  6. His finding a following amongst the millennial “none” or “done” is a very positive, hopeful thing. I like the title “..God in the Waves..” World history and each individual life is a series of up and down waves. Noting the rhythm of those waves is helpful in consciously embracing our current situations. God has a thing for waves. Light. Sound. Ocean. Clouds. Mountains. You might even say blood flow. Most of life is neither crest nor trough but the ride into one or the other.

    • David H says:

      Furthermore, all of matter itself is fundamentally wave-like; everything has its own wave-function (which becomes increasingly noticeable as size decreases). If you asked where a certain particle is, you couldn’t give a definitive answer, because there *isn’t* one: a wave by nature is spread out and doesn’t have a single, defined position.

      There are more parallels between nature and life than we will probably ever realize…

      • Mike the Geologist says:

        If you get a better picture of the book cover, you’ll see he has some type of signal/EM waves on either side of the beach picture. So he intends that parallel, and, there is a particular significance to “finding God in the waves” that I won’t give the spoiler to. And anybody else that reads the book or hears the podcast… don’t give the spoiler away just yet.

        • I have ordered the book on Amazon and am very much looking forward to it. Thanks for your insights Mike and David.

    • “Has no one ever told you about the law of Undulation?

      Humans are amphibians—half spirit and half animal. (The Enemy’s determination to produce such a revolting hybrid was one of the things that determined Our Father to withdraw his support from Him.) As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time. This means that while their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imaginations are in continual change, for to be in time means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy, therefore, is undulation—the repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall backHomer-Simpson-apathy, a series of troughs and peaks. If you had watched your patient carefully you would have seen this undulation in every department of his life—his interest in his work, his affection for his friends, his physical appetites, all go up and down. As long as he lives on earth periods of emotional and bodily richness and liveliness will alternate with periods of numbness and poverty. The dryness and dullness through which your patient is now going are not, as you fondly suppose, your workmanship; they are merely a natural phenomenon which will do us no good unless you make a good use of it…”

      Screwtape Letters

  7. Dana Ames says:

    Mike the G,

    a frequent commenter at Fr Stephen’s blog is Dee of St Herman’s (that’s her church where she lives in Alaska). She has a very interesting story, some of which it’s difficult for her – with a PhD in Chemistry – to put into words. Every once in a while she can get more of it out there on the screen. It seems that from her teenage years on, she had no interest in or thought of God at all, for various reasons. In her work in Chemistry she began seeing what she calls “death and resurrection” in the fabric of the scientific realities she was studying. Somehow, that led her to the Orthodox Church; she has yet to fill in the details of that part of her journey. I find it completely fascinating, because one of the things I began seeing as I was on my way out of Evangelicalism was how many times death and resurrection are juxtaposed in Scripture, and not only when talking about Jesus. This can be extrapolated to our psychobiological functioning as well, but to see it permeating the physical world, too – well, that’s something unexpected, but which my intuition (intellect + gut + “deepest self”) tells me must be the case.

    Dana

  8. Robert F says:

    when I get tired
    of my ceaseless journeying
    the wind carries me

    • This one’s my favourite in ages. Particularly when set alongside your first comment above.